This is how Missouri Republicans plan to overturn abortion rights vote
Reality Check is a Star series holding those with power to account and shining a light on their decisions. Have a suggestion for a future story? Email our journalists at RealityCheck@kcstar.com. Have the latest Reality Checks delivered to your inbox with our free newsletter.
Five months after Missouri voters legalized abortion by enshrining reproductive freedom in the state constitution, Republican lawmakers say they've landed on a plan to overturn the historic vote.
They're going to try to force another one.
After weeks of behind-the-scenes wrangling and disagreements over which legislation to pursue, a House committee on Wednesday advanced what Republicans argue is their best shot at overhauling the recently approved abortion rights amendment, called Amendment 3.
The proposed constitutional amendment would effectively ban nearly all abortions with limited exceptions for medical emergencies, fetal anomaly and rape or incest prior to 12-weeks gestation.
The renewed energy among Republicans marks a critical moment for both abortion supporters and opponents in Missouri. Both are gearing up for what's expected to be the first major retaliatory response from Republican lawmakers after 51.6% of voters overturned the state's near-total abortion ban in November.
'The Republican majority is a pro-life majority,' said House Majority Leader Alex Riley, a Springfield Republican. 'We wanted to work together with our House colleagues, with our Senate colleagues, to come up with another question to put in front of the voters.'
But the measure will face intense pushback from abortion rights advocates. Whether Republicans can successfully ban abortions again is far from a certainty.
Despite little notice from lawmakers, more than 70 people traveled to the Missouri Capitol on Wednesday to protest the legislation. After the committee limited public comments and kicked supporters out of the hearing room, individuals shared roughly two hours of fiery testimony in the Capitol rotunda.
'We're going to keep talking,' Jaeda Roth, a 20-year-old from Kansas City, told The Star at the Capitol. 'It doesn't matter if they don't listen to us because we're going to make it known who shut down our voices.'
The proposal still needs to win approval from the full House and Senate at a time when abortion opponents are at odds over how far they want to go to limit access. If the measure clears both chambers, it would go on the ballot in November 2026 or an earlier election called by Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe.
The effort marks a continuation of Republican attempts to curtail direct democracy in Missouri as voters have used the ballot box to pass several policies seen as progressive, such as a minimum wage increase, Medicaid expansion and marijuana legalization.
'They're elected by Missourians to go and represent the people's interests,' said Emily Wales, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Plains. 'And still, they blatantly refuse to implement or follow what the people have asked for.'
After Wednesday's hearing, House Minority Leader Ashley Aune, a Kansas City Democrat, told reporters that the decision to kick out individuals who traveled to testify against the legislation was 'unprecedented, unwarranted and, frankly, it was undemocratic.'
'I've never seen anything like that in my time here,' Aune said.
The committee approved the legislation without making a copy of it available online for the public to see. The full version of the bill was added online the next day.
The explosive hearing this week was months in the making. In both the lead-up to and the months after the November election, abortion opponents repeatedly signaled that they would push for another competing ballot measure in the future.
However, Republicans have been split over strategy. Some pieces of legislation would reinstate a complete ban with no exceptions for rape and incest. Others seek to offer more modest gestures at abortion access. The priorities have changed by the day, confusing even the most dialed-in politicos in the state Capitol.
Kehoe, who highlighted his staunch opposition to abortion in his bid for governor, did not specify which version he would support in an interview with The Star, saying only that he would vote in favor of a measure that was 'designed to protect innocent life.'
'Hopefully we can get something through that's reasonable that Missourians would support, and they'll put it on the ballot,' he said.
Both abortion rights supporters and opponents told The Star this week that legislation, which will be carried by Rep. Brian Seitz, a Branson Republican, is likely to be the vehicle through which Republicans try to ban the procedure.
'We put emphasis on protecting women,' Seitz told The Star. 'It also allows for the rape and incest if the woman decides to do something about that up till 12 weeks. And I think that's what most of the people voted for when they voted for Amendment 3.'
Seitz repeatedly deflected questions about at what point in a pregnancy his proposed amendment would ban abortion, saying, 'we're going to get this before the people.' Both Seitz and Riley rejected framing the legislation as an 'abortion ban,' saying that it would allow for exceptions.
The proposal, if approved by both chambers, would ask Missourians to strike down Amendment 3, which legalized abortion in the state. The measure would allow abortions in medical emergencies and cases of fetal anomalies, such as birth defects. It would also allow the procedure in exceptionally rare cases of rape or incest within 12 weeks of gestational age.
While the language of the amendment is silent on when exactly abortion would be banned, it completely strikes down the language of Amendment 3. Therefore, it's unclear whether the amendment is intended to allow the state's previous abortion ban to take effect or give lawmakers the ability to pass legislation to restrict access.
In addition to the abortion ban, the constitutional amendment would ban gender-affirming care for transgender residents under the age of 18. Those procedures, which include hormone therapy, are already banned under state law but became a rallying cry among abortion opponents who falsely claimed that Amendment 3 opened the door to legalizing them.
While the wording of the measure is subject to change, abortion supporters have also sharply criticized the proposed ballot language that lawmakers want voters to see.
The question does not mention an abortion ban and instead says it would guarantee 'access to care for medical emergencies, ectopic pregnancies, and miscarriages' among other lines. The language also purports to 'ensure women's safety during abortions.'
'The proposed ballot summary is incredibly deceptive,' said Maggie Olivia, the policy director for Abortion Action Missouri, an abortion rights advocacy group. 'Because the politicians behind these bans know that if they tell the truth about their goal to ban abortion, that they won't have the support.'
Roth, who traveled to Jefferson City from Kansas City before being kicked out of Wednesday's hearing, said it's a scary time to be a woman in Missouri.
She volunteered to help collect signatures to put Amendment 3 on the November ballot and make a difference in her community. Lawmakers, she said, are spending time trying to override what their constituents just approved.
'They don't want to listen,' she said. 'We voted on it, we made a choice. And they are going against that choice that their own constituents made. So it's really just a slap in the face to democracy.'
The vote to legalize abortion in conservative Missouri was historic, offering a sharp rebuke of Republican lawmakers who had spent decades restricting access. The constitutional amendment overturned a near-total ban that was enacted in 2022 after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade.
In the wake of the vote, opponents have consistently argued that Missourians didn't understand what they were voting on when they approved the measure. They have claimed Amendment 3 would lead to unrestricted and unregulated abortions.
But months after the vote, abortion providers are still fighting state officials in court to restore complete access. In February, the Planned Parenthood affiliate in Kansas City performed the first elective abortion in the state since the vote. It also marked the first abortion at its Kansas City clinic since 2018.
While access to procedural abortions is available in Planned Parenthood clinics in Kansas City, Columbia, and St. Louis, medication abortions are still inaccessible.
For Wales, with Planned Parenthood, the dueling efforts by state officials and lawmakers to fight restored abortion access through the courts and legislature have caused confusion among Missourians.
At this moment, Missourians don't understand what care is available, she said.
'They don't realize that procedural care has been restored in three different cities in the state,' she said. 'And they definitely don't understand why an issue that they thought was resolved last fall is already up for debate once again, because the legislature is not willing to listen to the people.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


San Francisco Chronicle
16 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
‘Abuse of power' or necessary protection? Swift fallout over National Guard troops in L.A.
State and national leaders responded swiftly after President Donald Trump ordered 2,000 National Guard soldiers to Los Angeles in an effort to quell protests of immigration raids. Soldiers arrived early Sunday and were reported to be gathering at the Edward Roybal federal building near the Metropolitan Detention Center, several Los Angeles news outlets reported. Trump had thanked them for their efforts Saturday night via a Truth Social post before they arrived. 'Great job by the National Guard in Los Angeles after two days of violence, clashes and unrest,' he wrote at 11:41 p.m. Saturday, adding that it was a 'job well done.' Less than an hour later, just after midnight, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass asserted that the National Guard had not yet been deployed in the city. She also thanked the Los Angeles Police Department and local law enforcement for their efforts on X. California Gov. Gavin Newsom also pointed out Trump's discrepancy Sunday morning. The White House announced Trump's plan to quell the widespread protests, which erupted in response to a series of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests, with 2,000 National Guard troops Saturday, citing that protest activity or violence that interfered with the work of immigration officials served as 'a form of rebellion' against the government. 'This federalization is benign done under 10 U.S.C. § 12406, which means the Guard troops will still be subject to the prohibitions in the Posse Comitatus Act,' Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Ca. wrote on X Saturday as part of a post condemning Trump's actions. The Posse Comitatus Act prevents federal troops from interfering with civilian law enforcement activities. The American Civil Liberties Union issued a statement Saturday about the situation. Penned by Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, described the deployment of the National Guard as 'an abuse of power' that is 'recklessly undermining our foundational democratic principle that the military should not police civilians.' Others have deemed the decision as a brave response to chaos. 'President Trump is stepping up to provide safety while L.A. leaders hide from reality,' Rep. Vince Fong, R-Bakersfield, wrote X Sunday morning. On the official X account for the House Committee on the Judiciary, Republicans shared a news clip of a man circling a burning car on a bike in Los Angeles while waving a Mexican flag with the caption 'Democrat-run Los Angeles.' Several other state and national political leaders, however, said sending in the National Guard was overreach. 'That move is purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions,' Newsom wrote on X, noting that local law enforcement had a handle on the situation. 'This is the wrong mission and will erode public trust.' Democratic Rep. Sara Jacobs of San Diego, where an ICE raid at a local Italian restaurant led to several arrests and sparked community outrage last week, similarly deemed Trump's intervention an 'unnecessary escalation' on X. She warned that the move 'raises the potential for people to get hurt and erodes public trust.' Protests erupted in Los Angeles after a series of ICE arrests in the area Friday and Saturday. The Department of Homeland Security said Saturday that 118 immigrants were arrested in Los Angeles in the past week, though it was not specified how many were in the country illegally. The city of Paramount, where the Los Angeles Times reported that a protester and Border Patrol agent were injured Saturday, has become a major hub for protests. Many news outlets in Los Angeles have reported tense confrontations between both sides, with law enforcement deploying rubber bullets, flash-bang grenades and tear gas against protesters, and demonstrators hurling rocks, fireworks and bottles in return. Dozens of protesters, including David Huerta, president of Service Employees International Union California, have been arrested by federal agents and Los Angeles police. 'The Trump administration has repeatedly broken the law while deporting American citizens, including children, without the due process protections guaranteed by the Constitution,' wrote Jeffries, D-N.Y. 'Across the country, the American people are exercising their First Amendment right to lawfully and peacefully demonstrate against these actions. Observing law enforcement activity is not a crime and the administration's deployment of the National Guard in response is inflammatory and provocative.' The National Guard is typically tasked with responding to domestic emergencies, including civil unrest, and can be summoned by any state governor or the president. Usually, presidents activate troops at the request of state leaders. The decision is rarely made by a president independently. 'Calling in the National Guard when the Governor has not requested assistance is an intentional move by the Trump Administration to unnecessarily escalate the situation in Los Angeles County,' Rep. Nanette D. Barragán, D-Carson (Los Angeles County), wrote Saturday on X. 'This is an abuse of power and what dictators do. It's unnecessary and not needed.'


Hamilton Spectator
19 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Mike Johnson downplays Musk's influence and says Republicans will pass Trump's tax and budget bill
With an uncharacteristically feistiness, Speaker Mike Johnson took clear sides Sunday in President Donald Trump's breakup with mega-billionaire Elon Musk. The Republican House leader and staunch Trump ally said Musk's criticism of the GOP's massive tax and budget policy bill will not derail the measure, and he downplayed Musk's influence over the GOP-controlled Congress. 'I didn't go out to craft a piece of legislation to please the richest man in the world,' Johnson said on ABC's 'This Week.' 'What we're trying to do is help hardworking Americans who are trying to provide for their families and make ends meet,' Johnson insisted. Johnson said he has exchanged text messages with Musk since the former chief of Trump's Department of Government Efficiency came out against the GOP bill. Musk called it an 'abomination' that would add to U.S. debts and threaten economic stability. He urged voters to flood Capitol Hill with calls to vote against the measure, which is pending in the Senate after clearing the House. His criticism sparked an angry social media back-and-forth with Trump, who told reporters over the weekend that he has no desire to repair his relationship with Musk. The speaker was dismissive of Musk's threats to finance opponents — even Democrats — of Republican members who back Trump's bill. 'We've got almost no calls to the offices, any Republican member of Congress,' Johnson said. 'And I think that indicates that people are taking a wait and see attitude. Some who may be convinced by some of his arguments, but the rest understand: this is a very exciting piece of legislation.' Johnson argued that Musk still believes 'that our policies are better for human flourishing. They're better for the US economy. They're better for everything that he's involved in with his innovation and job creation and entrepreneurship.' The speaker and other Republicans, including Trump's White House budget chief, continued their push back Sunday against forecasts that their tax and budget plans will add to annual deficits and thus balloon a national debt already climbing toward $40 trillion. Johnson insisted that Musk has bad information, and the speaker disputed the forecasts of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that scores budget legislation. The bill would extend the 2017 Trump tax cuts, cut spending and reduce some other levies but also leave some 10.9 million more people without health insurance and spike deficits by $2.4 trillion over the decade , according to the CBO's analysis. The speaker countered with arguments Republicans have made for decades : That lower taxes and spending cuts would spur economic growth that ensure deficits fall. Annual deficits and the overall debt actually climbed during the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, and during Trump's first presidency , even after sweeping tax cuts. Russell Vought, who leads the White House Office of Budget and Management, said on Fox News Sunday that CBO analysts base their models of 'artificial baselines.' Because the 2017 tax law set the lower rates to expire, CBO's cost estimates, Vought argued, presuming a return to the higher rates before that law went into effect. Vought acknowledged CBO's charge from Congress is to analyze legislation and current law as it is written. But he said the office could issue additional analyses, implying it would be friendlier to GOP goals. Asked whether the White House would ask for alternative estimates, Vought again put the burden on CBO, repeating that congressional rules allow the office to publish more analysis. Other Republicans, meanwhile, approached the Trump-Musk battle cautiously. 'As a former professional fighter, I learned a long time ago, don't get between two fighters,' said Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin on CNN's 'State of the Union.' He even compared the two billionaire businessmen to a married couple. 'President Trump is a friend of mine but I don't need to get, I can have friends that have disagreements,' Mullin said. 'My wife and I dearly love each other and every now and then, well actually quite often, sometimes she disagrees with me, but that doesn't mean that we can't stay focused on what's best for our family. Right now, there may be a disagreement but we're laser focused on what is best for the American people.' —- Associated Press journalist Gary Fields contributed from Washington. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .


Washington Post
30 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Mike Johnson downplays Musk's influence and says Republicans will pass Trump's tax and budget bill
With an uncharacteristically feistiness, Speaker Mike Johnson took clear sides Sunday in President Donald Trump's breakup with mega-billionaire Elon Musk. The Republican House leader and staunch Trump ally said Musk's criticism of the GOP's massive tax and budget policy bill will not derail the measure, and he downplayed Musk's influence over the GOP-controlled Congress.